H264 format would be the best?

[buttsie]

Some members already reduce as far as they can before quality loss becomes apparent
because of uploading limitations or simply to keep the files available to free downloaders
because of filehost restrictions.

The TV forums about usually have 3-4 different sizes to cover all bases
If you dont have up to date hardware the upper end is waste of bandwidth


Theres a good article here talking about the new codec versus the old h264
H265 is reducing the size of files by some margin

The cost would seem to be its forward looking

H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations?

By Joel Hruska on July 23, 2013

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...o-expectations

[rlg118]

Originally Posted by 31D1

6000 is a lot. Well, you know what the thing is though, if you are specializing in older material, there's really no real reason to be in any range higher than 4000 kbps (maybe 3500). Going that high does you no good because the actual DVD you're ripping (if it's say from 1997 or 2000) didn't have that high of a production anyway.

You're right - it is overkill. My view is that since compression can never add, only take away, from something which is already compressed, then I want as much of it as I can get.

I rip MP3s at 320 ("preset insane") for the same reason. If I need to "re-inflate" them (convert them back to WAV files) for editing, then I have lost very little of the original.

I remember ripping Viva Las Vegas at 2000, and then again at 3000, and the difference was striking. So I went to 4000! It is Ann-Margret, after all!

On the theory that too much is never enough, I rarely go below 5000 now, unless the only device I will play it on is my phone.

Originally Posted by rlg118

You're right - it is overkill. My view is that since compression can never add, only take away, from something which is already compressed, then I want as much of it as I can get.

I rip MP3s at 320 ("preset insane") for the same reason. If I need to "re-inflate" them (convert them back to WAV files) for editing, then I have lost very little of the original.

I remember ripping Viva Las Vegas at 2000, and then again at 3000, and the difference was striking. So I went to 4000! It is Ann-Margret, after all!

On the theory that too much is never enough, I rarely go below 5000 now, unless the only device I will play it on is my phone.

Now see music I do, like you, rip it at MP3/320. I want my music as HQ as possible, but I do try to avoid wav or flac. Those sizes are massive.

But with Viva Las Vegas, that's a big Hollywood flick so I'm sure the people who produced, maybe remastered, the movie/DVD did in fact make it at a high enough quality that ripping it at 3000 (or more) was worth it, and you could notice the crisp quality. But it's not so much the case with a low budget porn movie from 1998.

By the way, sorry I know this is a topic on h.264, but we've diverted a bit anyway, so allow me a quick separate question, still on topic of aspect ratios and all that. I've always wondered and wanted to know this, but I don't want to start a whole new thread for this. Does anyone know what the default aspect ratio was for VHS movies (adult, Hollywood, whatever) back in the day? In other words, DVDs back in the days of full screen 4:3, had a common aspect ratio of 640 by 480, because it was the perfect frame for those old school TVs I previously referenced. But, what was the common aspect ratio on a VHS? Was it, generally, also 640x480, or something lower? I'm curious because when I rip VHS, since it isn't digital and there's no way of obtaining the specs (is that the right word?), it gives no mention of what the actual aspect ratio is, and I have to wing it and size it myself.

[rlg118]

Originally Posted by 31D1

But it's not so much the case with a low budget porn movie from 1998.

Copy that.

I think your AR on the VHS tapes is still 4x3. At least most TV shows were shot that way. It's a good starting point, at any rate.

[Billiwog]

Originally Posted by 31D1

DVDs back in the days of full screen 4:3, had a common aspect ratio of 640 by 480 (...) what was the common aspect ratio on a VHS? Was it, generally, also 640x480, or something lower?

You're getting aspect ratio mixed up with resolution (640x480 is a resolution.) See if the following page answers your question.

http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/vhs_capture.html

Originally Posted by Billiwog

You're getting aspect ratio mixed up with resolution (640x480 is a resolution.) See if the following page answers your question.

http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/vhs_capture.html

yeah sorry about that, resolution was on my tongue and in my head, but I don't know why I said aspect ratio (I was reading a lot on AR at the time of my writing that, guess I got it mixed up). That was actually helpful. As I guessed, the standard, basic resolution of VHS seems to be extremely low, at 352x240.

I'm probably the only one obsessed with VHS conversion and resolutions at this point, the rest of you all are probably like, "dude, what's with the VCR?" But, maybe to try and tie it in with one of the original points to this thread, formats, converting, aspect ratios, video bit rates, and resolutions are difficult to try and harness when it comes to crafting a crisp, clear and beautiful DVD rip, at a fair, but good quality, file size. Imagine the difficulty when it deals with VHS (to rip all those vintage, OOP goodies we may have).

Doing some more reading, it appears the 352x240 resolution, being the standard go-to for VHS, is debatable. And I'm sure SP and SLP come into play as well, something that slipped my mind. Apparently some say VHS can, and should, be ripped at 720x540, which shocked me. But, again, it probably depends on how long ago the VHS tape was produced. I'm not sure that for a VHS tape from 1983, 720x540 would be appropriate. And then the whole issue of how many bit rates to use also comes into play. It's a confusion. Not a big deal, and fun to keep discovering if anything, but confusing nonetheless.

Just some recently ripped VHS stills:

LEFT is 352x240, RIGHT is 640x480
Since it's a still image, it looks the same (except one's smaller framed), but in motion maybe people can notice a difference. But, still, looking at that 352x240 video on a computer is so funny and shocking, what with our widescreen, high def screens of today. Even on an old TV I don't know how that resolution managed to look good. Alright, I'm done. Fascinating reads if anyone is interested:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/c...cr-record.html
https://www.photography-forums.com/t...olution.38983/
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/1...n-352x240-NTSC
Mind you, the discussions in these links are from 2002-2003. Still an interesting to read and travel back through time, though.

[CARLTON BROWN]

I haven't bothered keeping much old material from the 70s and 80s unless it was shot on film and has been re-released. A few classics are available in HD quality, but VHS material generally looks awful, especially 4.3 on a 16.9 2K screen. As for downloads, I just don't bother unless its 720, or ideally 1280. So the idea of keeping a large collection of poor quality old material is now a non-starter for me.

[bkemadu]

Hi I have found a small and effective encoder (not mine) here is the link for it:
http://www.h264encoder.com/

it converts all formats to stream friendly h264 type maybe you uploaders find useful.

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by bkemadu

Hi I have found a small and effective encoder (not mine) here is the link for it:
http://www.h264encoder.com/

it converts all formats to stream friendly h264 type maybe you uploaders find useful.

You might as well look for a free copy of the Win X HD video converter (Also available to but for about $20 I think). I've now been using this for a while and it produces excellent quality copies from almost anything. Very versatile, many sizes and with some editing and cropping capability. Recommended.